1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

On June 15, 2007, the Plaintiff was subject to disciplinary action under Article 69(1) and (3) of the graduate school regulations by the head of the above school on June 15, 2007, while attending a doctorate degree course at Cuniversity operated by the Defendant.

B. Article 69(1) of the graduate school regulations provides that “students shall comply with school regulations and comply with the guidance and supervision of the principal of the graduate school to which they belong.” Article 69(3) provides that “A student may be subject to disciplinary action against his/her act contrary to this portion as a student or a person who violates paragraph (1) of the said Article mutatis mutandis.”

Article 37 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the graduate school school regulations provides that “Any graduate school may take disciplinary action when it falls under Article 69 of the school regulations and Article 37 of the School Regulations or falls under any of the following subparagraphs.” (1) Article 37 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the graduate school regulations provides that “any person who is deemed to have no possibility of amendment due to poor character and conduct” and Article 37 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Rule provides that

C. Article 46 of the School Regulations provides that “A student who falls under any of the following subparagraphs shall be subject to disciplinary action, such as probation, abandonment, inorganic administration, inorganic administration, and expulsion from the register, by a resolution of the Students’ Guidance Committee.”

C. On May 30, 2007, the above university convened a general graduate school committee and presented the disciplinary agenda to the plaintiff, and the vote was held in the same number as the inorganic opinion 4:4.

Accordingly, on June 8, 2007, the general graduate school committee was convened to vote again and the proposal was passed 5:2. D.

The grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff are that the Plaintiff constitutes “a person who is deemed to have no possibility of amendment due to bad sexual conduct” as prescribed by Article 37 of the Enforcement Rule of the Graduate School Regulations in relation to the Plaintiff’s verbal abuse against D and E, a teacher of the said university.

(e) above;